What Is An Anti-Mormon?

[CASteinman]

There were lots of different bits you brought up, and my reply is lengthy so I am going to break It into pieces for easier reading. Hope you do not mind.

I'm an English major and a professional technical writing, so I spent a lot of time diagramming sentences.

Well, you will know more than I do as I am not an English major. I don’t think I regret my choices in the schools I attended, but I do wish I had valued English Writing courses more. As I have gotten older I have come to appreciate and value the ability that some people have to craft a good sentence.

Having said that, I don’t think I am so far in the dark that I will not be able to keep up with you.

The only polished and shiney car in the parking lot with which the Lord is well pleased.

That is, not necessarily the only car, nor the only polished car, not the only shiney car, not the only polished and shiney car, and perhaps not the only pleasing car, but the only one with which the Lord is well pleased, and we might reasonably conclude that the reason for the relative well pleasingness has to do with the polish and shine.

It's the structure of the sentence, not the adjacent word, that define what the word "only" qualitifies.

I can see what you are saying.

In this example, the word “Only” is not modifying the phrase “which the Lord is well pleased”, but rather “Car”. It is the only CAR with which He is well pleased.

And so, I see where I was wrong – that it does not have to modify “True and Living” as I thought – and in fact probably doesn’t.

On the other hand, I still think the description of your parsing is also wrong. It makes no sense for “Only” to modify the phrase "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually."

And that is the MAIN issue that I was objecting to in my post … that by moving it across the sentence and jumping over two other phrases and attaching it to the third phrase – well, as I said, I don’t think that the rules of Grammar allow for that parsing. It is extreme.

Your statement does not make sense to me. What I read you saying there is that “True and Living Church” are not related to “Only” – that “Only” relates instead to that second phrase which made me read your concept as being:

“The Only which I the Lord am well pleased.”

A nonsensical phrase to my eye and ear and mind.

So, In case it was not clear, I was objecting to the notion that as you had said:

the word "only" modifies the important phrase "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually."

I do accept that it could and reasonably would modify the word “Church.

And in my own defense, I would point out that had I actually diagrammed that sentence out on paper as I sort of started to do in my second post, I would have probably figured out that “Only” modified or was an adjective attached to “Church” and signifying that the Church is unique in all the world – it is His Church.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

So what does "true and living" mean? I think it is a merism

You bring up the meaning of “True and Living” – something I was not really focused on. But since you bring it up, I think that the meaning is also different from what you describe and it points to a weakness in your “Bright and Shiny Car” example.

You raise a good point about it being a Merism. In that light, I think that the idea of “True and Living” shows it to be Christ’s Church – for He is the “True and Living” God (as in Jeremiah 10:10, 1 Nephi 17:30, Alma 5:13, Alma 11:25, and Mormon 9:28) and this is His Church.

And that one way that I think your analogy of the “Bright and Shiny Car” fails – though it is perhaps some sort of Merism, it is an example that does not really reflect back on the owner the way “True and Living” does. There is something profound about Jesus being “True and Living” and it is a great honor that He puts His Name upon the Church and grants His Authority – making it both “True” and “Living”.

To bolster your point, you have said you explored the phrase “true and living”, and found it being associated with the themes of D&C 1 “point for point” and “verse for verse”. I don’t see that.

I do not see how D&C 138 looks so much like D&C 1 – certainly not point for point and verse for verse. There is none of the anger, wrath, and promised earthly vengeance in D&C 138 that we see in D&C 1, yet verse 39 is there describing the true and living God as worthy of worship by the faithful daughters of Eve.

Then too, Mormon chapter 9, does not discuss a vengeful God coming to blot out world-wide iniquity with a sword and fire. Rather it describes the personal level of dedication and commitment and pure heart that is expected of one who would serve the “True and Living God”.

And of course, Alma chapter 5 is the great Chapter about Faith. Not so much about end times events and warnings of God’s Arm bathed in Heaven. Rather we find, again, the personal and more intimate situation of individuals putting their trust in the “True and Living God” and thus being saved – not from Christ on a Horse but from the effects of a lack of faith and sins that could hold us back from eternal life.

It is, I think very easy to find connections between scriptures. I knew a fellow who did it constantly (very innocently as well) but came up with the most outrageous connections. I’m not saying your connections are the same, but I do think it is a stretch to claim that most instances of “True and Living” as a phrase , come “point for point” and “verse for verse” with the same context as that found in D&C 1.

On the other hand, I don’t think it is a big stretch to say that the “True and Living” God has created and owned a Church and bestowed upon that Church his Power and Authority – thus making it “True and Living” – like Him. And of course, that would explain how this is the Only Church, with which he is WELL Pleased – because it is the only one that carries the power and authority of the True and Living God.

[CASteinman]

the best way to interpret a text is not to remove everything from a text that does not say what you expect it to say. If the extra verbage in D&C 1:30 is mere rhetorical flourish, void of content, a way to say something with 30 words that could be said simply with 3,

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I never suggested any such thing. Rather, to my eye, it is you who was trying to throw out words. I think that “Only” as a modifier of “True and Living Church” is substantially strengthened by the other words in verse 30 that you do not mention – mainly “on the face of the whole earth”. But I am not going to go so far as to say that you are ignoring them – only that I don’t see much attention paid there.

But I have not suggested that there are too many words there or that they have no relevance. I do not understand why you bring this up.

then why does the rest of D&C 1 expressly rule out that exclusivist reading?

I don’t really know what you mean by “exclusivist” but I am going to take a shot and guess you mean that the LDS Church is not the only true Church or is not the only living Church or is not the only Church with which God is well pleased or some combination of those factors. If I am wrong then what I say after this should be ignored, but that is the assumptions I am making because otherwise I do not understand your words.

And in that context here is my answer: The rest of D&C 1 is extremely exclusivist in content. The whole thing is about how HE JESUS did this great work – using mere men to do it. But though they are mere men, they must be listened to because they have the aegis of his Power and Authority.

Why insist that God also spoke to unspecified "others"

Because it was understood who they were: Those, associated with Joseph Smith, to whom he had given commandments “that they should proclaim THESE THINGS unto the world”. They are they who were described as “my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days” – who were to go forth because “I the Lord have commanded them.” He then makes it clear by what power they do this: “this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants”.

and that God is willing to provide the information to all flesh?

Because, he has just said that he is going to destroy the World but, He says “I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion. And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon Idumea, or the world”.

Why insist so bluntly of leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest"

It is important that people understand that the leaders are not God – that they might err, but nevertheless this Work is God’s Work – it is in His Hand and if there is a problem, He will take care of it. BUT, even if they do err, nevertheless, “these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness” and those same servants were given power “power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness”

In other words, this is HIS Church but he uses men who are not perfect.

and that further knowledge may come in response to inquiry, and further revelation may come as well?

Because it is His Church. He will direct it. Further revelations will come as He sees fit to accomplish His goals and objectives. I am not sure why this question would be asked.

That suggests that we don't have all truth on the shelf

Well, we don’t need suggestions. We can go other places and find, directly, that we don’t have all truth. It has not been given to us. But I do not see how this is the least bit relevant. After all, He did not say this is the Only Perfect Church with all Knowledge. He said it is the Only True and Living Church.

[CASteinman]

I think the standard interpretation derives more from the early stages of Perry Scheme thinking than from close reading of the text.

Everyone has an opinion I suppose. I don’t actually know what yours is though. You claim to have an alternative interpretation, but other than the ungrammatical:

The Only Which I the Lord am well pleased

I do not exactly know what it is. I’m probably a bit thick, but I can’t really suss out what your view is, really.

[CASteinman]

Pahoran is on the mark.

I do not see how it is possible for him to have been on the mark.

1. He did not really read what I wrote (or)

2. He did not understand what I wrote

3. He contradicted himself

4. He falsely accused me

5. He spent time berating me for sins he was committing but of which I was innocent.

6. When challenged to correct all of this, he ignored me.

On top of all of that, he makes this argument:

“It might be useful to look at the passage in question as saying: "The only X with which I the Lord am well pleased." If people then said that the passage declared something to be "the only X," I think you'd realise that they were wrong.”

In doing so, he does the very exact thing you were concerned about: Removing “extraneous” words (and by that removal, changes the meaning).

How is THAT sort of thing “on the mark”?

Or is it only bad if you think that I “removed everything from a text that does not say what I expect it to say” – but its better than OK – its wonderful and on the mark -- if someone else does that?

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I like that one too. But what to do with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff?

I think, it wasn't exactly the Churches that were the abomination, but rather the creeds that were. And the professors of those creeds were "all corrupt".

[CASteinman]

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I'm left to wonder if LDS are right to so vilify the "anti." Is it the message the anti brings or is it the manner in which it is brought? If it's the message, it hardly seems fair for the LDS church to take the "one true church" position, together with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff, and then get upset when non-LDS disagrees with you. If it's the manner in which the message is brought, and we're talking about non-LDS people who are mean, rude, and nasty, then I say pound em. But, if we're talking about non-LDS who are merely persistent in their views that the LDS church is "wrong," then I say you really can't pound em. The LDS church has way too many missionaries out there trying to convert others this way.

I think both things are bad, but the intent to destroy faith and testimony, to destroy the peace of the Saints is the worst thing. Jesus has talked about His view of this. He said "Surely offenses must come" but "Woe by unto him by whom they come". And "It would better for him that a millstone were tied around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea"

I don't think Jesus was wishy-washy on the matter.

I don't even see where he was all caught up in "its ok if people are against me since I send out Missionaries. Its only fair that they should oppose me in that case".

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I understand that the LDS missionary purposefully does not spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways their church is wrong. Indeed, the missionary is specifically trained not to do that at MTC. However, they do spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways the LDS church is right, and in the end, the result is the same.

Are you sure it is really the same?

Since becoming Mormon, I far more highly value the teachings and organization of the Catholic Church -- much more than I did before.

[CASteinman]

We focus on what is right about our message. How would you preach as a missionary to, say, a Hindu?

I actually had an opportunity once -- not with a Hindu -- but with a Buddhist. In fact a rather famous or semi-famous American Buddhist Monk who runs various chartity things on the west coast. I sat next to him on an aircraft and I taught him the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which he had heard. But which he had not heard my way.

I told him that I liked the Buddhist way of beliefs -- of seeking to purify the soul through removal of the worldly and focus on the spiritual and the kind.

I said that even though Buddhists may become very very good people, no matter how much they try, they do not become perfect. This is not a smear on them -- its not an insult -- the committed Buddhists may be very extremely good people. But they just never become perfect.

But that's the goal isn't it?

And you can't really become perfect as long as there is any worldly contamination.

He agreed with that.

At that point, I taught about how Jesus does it and will cleanse us. I went into the whole bit.

By the end of the airplane trip he was pretty bored!

No. Not really. he was kind and I think he had a thoughtful look on his face. I think *some* of what I said made some impression.

[Law22]

I think, it wasn't exactly the Churches that were the abomination, but rather the creeds that were. And the professors of those creeds were "all corrupt".

Again:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

[zerinus]

Not really. We treat all who ask questions as sincere seekers of truth. A few who wish to argue or debate us are either politely responded to with a "no thanks" or someone might personally respond if they are interested in the subject, but FAIR tries to give all who write FAIR with questions and suggestions the benefit of the doubt.

If you mean do we identify anti-Mormons as opposed to straight forward critics (either the disagreeing or analytical academic variety)in our writings, yes, where appropriate.

Thank you. That is more or less what I was saying, or trying to.

[zerinus]

. . . that “Only” modified or was an adjective attached to “Church” and . . .

According to the crazy rules of English grammar, "only" is classed as an adverb, not an adjective. See here and here.

[CASteinman]

According to the crazy rules of English grammar, "only" is classed as an adverb, not an adjective. See here and here.

It is actually both depending upon whether it is modifying a verb or a noun. However, when used as an adverb, it can be confusing because it will follow the verb, and in following the verb, it might precede a noun.

Here is an example as an adverb:

He is only the actor with red hair in our play and he can be replaced.

And here it is as an adjective:

He is the only actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.

There is also one other interesting way the word is used -- not as an Adjective, not as an Adverb but as a conjunction! And I think that it is as a conjunction that we find it in a place in scripture where it sounds a bit weird. Its almost archaic in a way:

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and … the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness."

In that case, as a conjunction, you can read it as being "except upon the principles of righteousness" If that were to be an adverb, I think it would very significantly change the meaning of that sentence -- and make it almost exactly the reverse of what its intention is. It would read "the powers of heaving cannot be controlled nor handled simply or merely upon the principles of righteousness (it takes more than that). And if it were an adjective (which is hard to get to because it is so far from the noun and does not fit, plus it makes less sense) it would read something like "There are a firm set of principles of righteousness and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled.by them".

How much power can one word have?

"Only" only has the power that only one word can have only when used correctly. Heh heh heh.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

He also said "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84.

I can't help but wonder if anti-Mormons knew that this generosity of spirit, reflected in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other prophets, would moderate their views a bit. Maybe they think we hated them first?

I don't really believe that it would change a thing. I don't think that they care about such things. But I do wonder.

[zerinus]

And here it is as an adjective:

He is the only actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.

Okay, I looked it up in online dictionaries, and you appear to be right. It can be used as an adjective as well, in examples such as "the only child," "the one and only ...". But in the example you have given, it looks like an adverbial use to me, because it qualifies the whole phrase, "actor with red hair".

[CASteinman]

Okay, I looked it up in online dictionaries, and you appear to be right. It can be used as an adjective as well, in examples such as "the only child," "the one and only ...". But in the example you have given, it looks like an adverbial use to me, because it qualifies the whole phrase, "actor with red hair".

adverbs modify verbs. Adjectives modify nouns and noun-preposition phrases like "actor with red hair" So, as I read it, "actor" is the noun (modified by "only"). "with" is the preposition. Red is another adjective and Hair is the noun object of "with".

So, since it modifies the noun, it is an adjective.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

adverbs modify verbs. Adjectives modify nouns and noun-preposition phrases like "actor with red hair" So, as I read it, "actor" is the noun (modified by "only"). "with" is the preposition. Red is another adjective and Hair is the noun object of "with".

So, since it modifies the noun, it is an adjective.

Adverbs can modify verbs, other adverbs, adjectives, phrases, clauses, or a whole sentence. I could be wrong; but it seems to me that in your example it is modifying an entire phrase, therefore technically it would be regarded as an adverbial use.

[CASteinman]

Adverbs can modify verbs, other adverbs, adjectives, phrases, clauses, or a whole sentence. I could be wrong; but it seems to me that in your example it is modifying an entire phrase, therefore technically it would be regarded as an adverbial use.

::Shrug::: I am not an expert but that is how I remember things from when I learned it. But, here is an example I just found in Websters Dictionary of the use of "only" as an adjective:

the only way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it

To me "only way to really appreciate" has roughly equal structure to "only actor with red hair". "Only" is "Only". "Way" corresponds with "actor". "With" corresponds to "to". The phrase at the end has a different structure but I don't think this affects the use of the word "only".

[zerinus]

::Shrug::: I am not an expert but that is how I remember things from when I learned it. But, here is an example I just found in Websters Dictionary of the use of "only" as an adjective:

the only way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it

To me "only way to really appreciate" has roughly equal structure to "only actor with red hair". "Only" is "Only". "Way" corresponds with "actor". "With" corresponds to "to". The phrase at the end has a different structure but I don't think this affects the use of the word "only".

It seems to me that those are two differently structured sentences:

• He is the only actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The only way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

In the first, "only" modifies the entire phrase, "actor with red hair". In the second, "only" just modifies "way," nothing else.

[CASteinman]

It seems to me that those are two differently structured sentences:

• He is the only actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The only way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

In the first, "only" modifies the entire phrase, "actor with red hair". In the second, "only" just modifies "way," nothing else.

Way and actor are the key things.

Way is a noun.

Actor is a noun

The phrases afterward are not important to the fact that it is the "only" actor and the "only" way.

Here is an interesting website:

http://1aiway.com/nlp4net/services/enparser/

Try it on these two sentences and you will see what I mean about the structure being the same:

He is the only actor with red hair

This is the only way to appreciate beauty

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

Way and actor are the key things.

Way is a noun.

Actor is a noun

The phrases afterward are not important to the fact that it is the "only" actor and the "only" way.

Here is an interesting website:

http://1aiway.com/nl...vices/enparser/

Try it on these two sentences and you will see what I mean about the structure being the same:

He is the only actor with red hair

This is the only way to appreciate beauty

The website worked with the first sentence, but not with the second. In any case, this "sentence diagramming" stuff doesn't mean a lot to me. I learned my English grammar decades ago the old fashioned way, when this kind of thing was unknown. All I can say is that it is reasonably clear to me that two cases are not the same. In the first, the entire phrase is being modified, whereas in the second, only the word "way" is modified. Perhaps we need a good English teacher and grammarian to settle the issue one way or another.

[CASteinman]

The website worked with the first sentence, but not with the second. In any case, this "sentence diagramming" stuff doesn't mean a lot to me. I learned my English grammar decades ago the old fashioned way, when this kind of thing was unknown. All I can say is that it is reasonably clear to me that two cases are not the same. In the first, the entire phrase is being modified, whereas in the second, only the word "way" is modified. Perhaps we need a good English teacher and grammarian to settle the issue one way or another.

Well, though the diagramming does not mean anything to you, it supports my position and does not support your position. It is programmed to follow the rules of grammar. I suspect that for short sentences it follows them pretty well. And that was the point of my bringing that website to the discussion -- it represents a truly objective third party that just looks coldly at the Language and the Rules of Grammar. No agenda. Just simply spits it out.

I thought it would help "settle the issue one way or another".

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

Well, though the diagramming does not mean anything to you, it supports my position and does not support your position. It is programmed to follow the rules of grammar. I suspect that for short sentences it follows them pretty well. And that was the point of my bringing that website to the discussion -- it represents a truly objective third party that just looks coldly at the Language and the Rules of Grammar. No agenda. Just simply spits it out.

I thought it would help "settle the issue one way or another".

Well, for me it doesn't. It is a mechanical way of looking at it. Grammar and language is full of subtleties and nuances that do not lend themselves to this kind of treatment. Here is another way of looking at the two sentences. If you remove the modifier "only" from each sentence, how do the sentences compare? This is what they look like, without the "only":

• He is the [] actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The [] way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

In the first case, dropping the word "only" actually makes the sentence incomplete. You need to word "only" in there to make the sentence complete. That is because you are dropping an adverb which is modifying an entire phrase. And the subject of the sentence is the entire phrase, "actor with red hair," not just "actor". In the second case, dropping the word doesn't make the sentence incomplete. The sentence is still proper and complete, because you are merely dropping an adjective which modifies a noun. You can try another experiment. You can replace "only" another adjective, like "best," and see how it affects the sentences:

• He is the best actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The best way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

I hope you get the idea now, because I don't know what to try next if you don't!

[CASteinman]

Well, for me it doesn't. It is a mechanical way of looking at it.

Grammar is mostly mechanics, especially for very simple sentences and phrases. While you are right that in complex phrasing, there can be issues that pure mechanics cannot get to, this is not a complex phrase. Please note: you are rejecting a perfectly objective third party.

• He is the [] actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The [] way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

In the first case, dropping the word "only" actually makes the sentence incomplete.

It makes the first sentence incomplete because then it is not clear what the second part of the sentence is precisely referring to. However, if you simplify the sentences they both make sense:

He is the actor with the red hair.

The way to really appreciate beauty is to walk ....

They both make sense.

Since the phrase "all the rest have brown hair" is unnecessary and seems to be confusing the issue, lets remove in the future.

You can try another experiment You can replace "only" another adjective, like "best," and see how it affects the sentences:

• He is the best actor with red hair -- all the rest have brown hair.
  
• The best way to really appreciate the beauty of the forest is to walk through it.
  

I hope you get the idea now, because I don't know what to try next if you don't!

What exactly do you see wrong with either of those sentences? They both make good grammatical and logical sense.

[zerinus]

What exactly do you see wrong with either of those sentences? They both make good grammatical and logical sense.

Okay, I will try again. Let's simplify the first sentence as follows:

"He is the best actor, with red hair"

"He is the best actor with red hair"

These two sentences actually have different meanings. In the first, "best" modifies "actor" only, and is used adjectivally. It means that he is the best actor period--who happens to have red hair. In the second sentence, "best" modifies the entire phrase, "actor with red hair," and is used adverbially. It means that there are lots of actors with red hair; but he is the best one among them. There may be other actors better than him; but they would have a different color hair. That is an example of an adverbial and adjectival use of the word "best". Does that make it any clearer?

EDIT: I tried those two sentences in Reed-Kellogg Diagrammer. It parses the second sentence, but not the first (with the comma in it). It says, "Cannot find an utterance," whatever that is supposed to mean. So much for your great sentence diagramming method.

Edited May 26, 2012 by zerinus